Tuesday, December 26, 2090

Ward Churchill Book Review


Book Review by A. Clare Brandabur

A Little Matter of Genocide:
Holocaust and Denial in the Americas-1492 to the Present.

by Ward Churchill (San Francisco: City Lights Books. 1997.)

A few years ago I was given a copy of Richard Drinnon’s Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian Hating and Empire Building (1980), a volume of American history in which the author documents the successive genocides committed by white settlers against darker-skinned peoples from the extermination of the Pequods through the Viet Nam War. This frank approach was a refreshing change from the dominant-discourse view of these events as a series of heroic ‘frontiers’. Only one problem: it seemed that Drinnon’s courageous version of American history required, as a final chapter, an account of the genocide against the Palestinians now being carried out by those US surrogates the Israelis. When I called the editor who had entrusted the book to me and made this caveat, he said quietly, ‘I know. I called Drinnon and told him the same thing. He agreed with me. But he said if he had written that chapter, the book would not have been published.’

Although Ward Churchill has not written fully on the genocide against the Palestinians, he does place it within the global context of the present book, A Little Matter of Genocide, a book which leapt out at me from a display of books by and about native Americans in City Lights Book Store. The author is an enrolled Keetoowah Cherokee and Professor of American Indian Studies in the Department of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and has been a leader of the Colorado Chapter of the American Indian Movement since 1972. The title of the book is taken from a statement by Russell Means, founder of the American Indian Movement, who spoke of ‘a little matter of genocide right here at home,’ by which he meant the ongoing genocide against the American Indians which is still in progress.

In this week in which the UN marked the hundredth anniversary of the birth of Polish-American jurist Raphael Lemkin, it is fitting to notice that Churchill’s book is dedicated to this remarkable man. Lemkin’s comprehensive definition of genocide, ultimately incorporated into the UN Resolution on Genocide, had been rejected (in part at least, Churchill believes, because he was Jewish and spoke with a foreign accent) by Democrat and Republican members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in their deliberations in 1948. The purpose of the book is to achieve an understanding of genocide which will enable the global community to call past genocides by their right name, to stop genocides now in progress, and to prevent future genocides. Starting from the facts of the genocide against his own people, Churchill relates the history of genocide and the struggle to articulate a definition of the term sufficiently accurate and comprehensive to prevent the watering down of the concept, and to cut through the misleading rhetoric which now obfuscates debate thereby permitting this and other genocides to continue. Churchill gives shocking statistics:

During the four centuries spanning the time between 1492, when Christopher Columbus first set foot on the ‘New World’ of a Caribbean beach and 1892, when the US Census Bureau concluded that there were fewer than a quarter-million indigenous people surviving within the country’s boundaries, a hemispheric population estimated to have been as great as 125 million was reduced by something over 90 percent. The people had died in their millions of being hacked apart with axes and swords, buried alive and trampled under horses, hunted as game and fed to dogs, shot, beaten, stabbed, scalped for bounty, hanged on meathooks and thrown over the sides of ships at sea, worked to death as slave laborers, intentionally starved and frozen to death during a multitude of forced marches and internments, and, in an unknown number of instances, deliberately infected with epidemic diseases. (p.  1)

Later in the book he gives a staggering estimate of the total who were ‘ethnically cleansed’: ‘All told, it is probable that more than one hundred million native people were ‘eliminated’ in the course of Europe’s ongoing ‘civilization’ of the western hemisphere.’(p. 86) (Emphasis added)

Yet this ghastly history is denied, suppressed, minimized or even celebrated by deniers of what Ward Churchill calls the American holocaust. The director of the National Endowment for the Humanities, Lynne Cheney, in collaboration with the US Senate, during preparations for the 1992 celebration of Columbus Day, refused to fund any film production which proposed to use the word ‘genocide’ to explain the liquidation of Native Americans. Charles Krauthamer used one of his Time Magazine columns (May 27, 1991) to claim that the extermination of Native Americans was entirely justified because it wiped out ‘barbarisms’ like the Inca community (notwithstanding that pre-Columbian Inca art has been compared favorably with the achievements of classical Greece, e.g. by Malcolm Billings in a recent BBC Heritage episode on central America). Arthur Schlesinger, Churchill continues, is prarphrased by David Stannard as asserting that without the European conquests and slaughter, at least some New World societies would today be sufficiently unpleasant places to live so as to make acceptable the centuries of genocide that were carried out against the native peoples of the entire Western Hemisphere. (p. 4)

From denials of the American holocaust, Churchill moves to a consideration of the Nazi program against Poles, Jews, Gypsies, Slovenes and Serbs: ‘Between 1938 and 1945, Poland, the first Slavic nation to fall to the Germans, suffered 6,028,000 nonmilitary deaths, about 22 percent population reduction. (Three million of the Polish dead were Jews, and another 200,000 or so Gypsies, so the Slavic reduction would come to about 14 percent.) Virtually every member of the Polish intelligentsia was murdered.’ (pp. 47-49) More horrendous statistics follow: the USSR suffered terrible losses: by May 10, 1943, the Germans had taken 5,405,616 Soviet military prisoners; of these, around 3.5 million were starved, frozen, shot, gassed, hanged, killed by unchecked epidemics, or simply worked to death. The pre-war population of the Ukraine, Churchill says, was reduced, by the time the Germans were finally driven out in 1944, by about 14.5 million, of these at least 7 million were dead. The Soviet Union lost a minimum of 11 million civilians to Nazi extermination measures, perhaps as many as 15 million, plus another 3.5 million exterminated as prisoners of war, in addition to perhaps a million troops executed by Wehrmacht and Waffen SS units rather than being taken prisoner. (p. 48)

In spite of the overwhelming documentation for mass extermination in the American holocaust and the obvious inclusion of Slavs, Gypsies, Ukrainians and others besides Jews in the German extermination program, there are still those who deny that the term ‘genocide’ applies to Native Americans, and they are the same in some instances, Churchill observes, as those who deny that the term ‘genocide’ can be applied to any group other than the European Jews. At the center of this verbals storm is Zionism. Churchill says:

But preposterous as some of the argumentation has become, all of it is outstripped by a substantial component of zionism which contends not only that the American holocaust never happened, but that no ‘true’ genocide has ever occurred, other than the Holocaust suffered by the Jews at the hands of the nazis during the first half of the 1940s.’ (p. 7) (Emphasis added)

Of course this discourse has been joined since Churchill’s book by such impressive voices as that of Ronald Finkelstein who castigates those who exploit Jewish death and suffering for personal gain. Here, in what is perhaps the most subtle part of A Little Matter of Genocide, the author provides a closely reasoned discussion in which he shows that there is a close relationship between those who deny the historicity of genocide against the Jews under Hitler’s Germany (a fact of history which Churchill, like Edward Said, regards as established) and those who claim that the German murder of Jews was and remains the only holocaust to which the term applies: those two positions are two sides to the same coin in Churchill’s view. Both positions falsify the whole subject and render objective discussion impossible.

Reviewing the public statements of ‘deniers’ and ‘exclusivists,’ Churchill asks what motive lies behind these patently false positions. The exclusivists, he says, have an agenda of establishing a ‘truth’ which serves to compel permanent maintenance of the privileged political status of Israel, ‘the Jewish state established on Arab land in 1947 as an act of international atonement for the Holocaust . . . and to construct a conceptual screen behind which to hide the realities of Israel’s ongoing genocide against the Palestinian population whose rights and property were usurped in its very creation.’ (p. 74)(Enphasis added)

But why, Churchill asks, do intellectuals and public figures in the rest of the world buy into such a ‘thoroughly dishonest enterprise?’ He analyzes the confluence of interests which he believes explains at least some of this collusion: by seeming to accept ‘exclusivism’, i.e. by seeming to believe that only the Jewish people have ever been the victims of genocide, these other interests gain automatic exemption from coming to terms with various skeletons in their own closets.

This dominant discourse dictates, for example, that Turkey and Israel have an unholy alliance: if Turkey piously agrees that only the Jewish people have suffered true genocide, in return Israel will look the other way from what precisely happened to the Armenians in 1915, and from what is happening to the Kurds today. The US can entertain itself with annual Hollywood blockbusters dramatizing the Diary of Anne Frank, Shoah, Shtetl, Yentl, etc., while carrying on with the nuclear pollution of Native American lands and the impoverishment and deracination of the Indian peoples, meanwhile avoiding the genocidal aspects of its Korean and Viet Nam adventures. Germany can piously atone for its Hitlerian past, paying reparations to Jewish Holocaust survivors while continuing its active persecution and ghettoization of its Gypsy population without the unpleasant admission that the Gypsies too are Holocaust survivors.

Churchill also throws light on the Revolution of British colonies against England in 1776 and on the Cold War as he pursues the subject of genocide. He points out that the colonists opposed England in the years leading up the the American Revolution, not just over the issue of taxation without representation, as we have been taught, but also over the seizure of more and more Native American land. While the Mother Country, engaged in conflicts in Euroope, was trying to cut its losses and sign peace treaties with local Indian tribes putting an end to continued territorial expansion, the settlers wished to continue to expand into ‘free land’ just like the Jewish/American settlers greedy for ‘free land’ in the Occupied Palestinian West Bank and Gaza today. Blackmailed by its Zionist lobbies (of both Fundamentalist Christians and Jews) and unwilling to submit to a world-wide structure designed to settle international conflicts in non-vilent ways, the US resorts to military muscle to impose its own agenda for Israeli colonial expansion. Thus the United States seeks to impose a ‘world order’ through the same kind of unassailable military force that Hitler desired earlier for Germany. Contrary to what now passes for ‘responsible’ analysis in US scholarship, Churchill concludes that the Cold War was the outcome of this bellicosity, as Noam Chomsky has argued. (pp. 370-77)

In the final chapter, Churchill offers an amended Genocide Convention which refines and elaborates that pioneered by Raphael Lemkin who had left Poland in 1939 (his family was to perish in the Holocaust), and was working out of Yale and Duke Universities in the US. Lemkin developed a complex description of genocide in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government Proposals for Redress (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: 1944) Unlike many of the narrower definitions which restrict the idea of genocide to the physical annihilation of an entire group, Lemkin’s concept of genocide included any ‘coordinated and planned annihilation of a national, religious, or racial group by a variety of actions aimed at undermining the foundations essential to the survival of the group as a group.’ This idea of genocide included attacks on political and social institutions, culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of the group. Even non-lethal acts that undermined the liberty, dignity and personal security of members of a group constituted genocide, if they contributed to weakening the viability of the group, Churchill explains. (pp. 407-8) To readers familiar with the actualities of Israeli occupation in Palestine and other post-colonial conflicts worldwide, this definition will resonate with significance.

Churchill presents this definition under the title: Proposed Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide, 1997, in the format used for legal instruments in the United Nations, in the hope that it may serve as the basis for serious discussion of this crime which stands like a dark shadow at the heart of human history and without an understanding of which the human race may be unable to achieve a peaceful and stable future.

The book contains an extensive bibliography; the index should be revised in future editions to be more inclusive. For example, only four citations are listed for Chomsky, whereas I have counted at least nine others in the text.

Sunday, August 26, 2029

Book Review
Columbus and Other Cannibals The Wétiko Disease of Exploitation, Imperialism, And Terrorism Jack D. Forbes – Seven Stories Press 234 pp – $14.95 “I will argue that we can compare the commemoration of Columbus with the doings of the neo-Nazis organizations in Europe and the Americas, groups which commemorate the great dates of Hitler’s regime. The difference is that the neo-Nazis are a minority and their commemorations usually do not receive much attention. The followers of Columbus, on the other hand, occupy seats of power throughout much of the Americas. Their holidays are national ones, often imposed on their respective societies.” — Jack D. Forbes Columbus and other cannibalsChristopher Columbus is an enigma in America. For many Americans, Columbus is viewed with romanticism of a heroic explorer who “sailed the ocean blue.” He is part of the American construction by an educational system that creates heroes of legendary proportion that are perpetrated from generation to generation. Not all groups romanticize Columbus. To American Indians, Columbus is likened to a criminal who came to shores of the Western Hemisphere to pilfer and commit hideous crimes against indigenous women. “Columbus and Other Cannibals: The Wétiko Disease of Exploitation, Imperialism, And Terrorism” is a powerful book that dethrones the enigmatic Columbus and puts into perspective colonization of the Americas. Written by Jack D. Forbes, the former chair of Native American Studies at the University of California at Davis, the book pushes the envelope way beyond what American students are traditionally taught about Columbus in school. According to Forbes, cannibalism is a disease. He refers it as the “wétiko”, cannibal, psychosis. He writes of this form of cannibalism on the Americas brought by Columbus and crew: “Brutality knows no boundaries, Greed knows no limits. Perversion knows no borders. Arrogance knows no frontiers. Deceit knows no edges.” Jack Forbes Jack Forbes Forbes, Powhatan-Renápe and Delaware-Lanápe descent, passed away in February 2011. Forbes authored twelve books, including “Apache, Navaho and Spaniard,” that has been in print for over thirty-two years. In “Columbus and Other Cannibals,” Forbes will challenge those who have been brought up in an American society that has chosen to whitewash, no pun intended, all of the atrocities done to the indigenous peoples of the Americas. What is fascinating is Forbes does so without the tone of anger that is typical in those who seek to provoke thought to a different level. Forbes seeks to provoke thought, but writes as a philosopher who understands the context of who he is. First published in 1978, “Columbus and Other Cannibals” was revised and rereleased in 2008. The latest edition provides interesting perspective that include contemporary worldviews that are inclusive of George W. Bush’s war on terror. And, on the word terrorism, which Forbes argues was part of Indian Removal from their lands during the 1800s. So, while Forbes writes about Columbus, he argues the premise of Columbus’ cannibalism has extended to future, and including this, generation of Americans. “Columbus and Other Cannibals” should be read by those who want to better understand America and why it behaves as it does today. American Indian students will benefit from this book as they prepare to educate future generations of American Indians the “why” behind what happened to our ancestors.

Saturday, December 26, 2020

Genocide Videos

============================================================== ======================================================================================

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Smallpox, Indians, and Blankets

Back to Modern History SourceBook

Modern History Sourcebook:
Smallpox, Indians, and Blankets

From an Internet post by Mary Ritchie (ritchie@cs.uwp.edu) Fri, 2 Jul 1993. She addressed the question of whether Smallpox was really spread by blankets to American Indians

This reference [for the story of American Indians and deliberate smallpox spreading ]is from American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492, by Russell Thornton, 1987 (Norman: U. of Oklahoma Pr.) pp.78-79
It is also during the eighteenth century that we find written reports of American Indians being intentionally exposed to smallpox by Europeans. In 1763 in Pennsylvania, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander of the British forces....wrote in the postscript of a letter to Bouquet the suggestion that smallpox be sent among the disaffected tribes. Bouquet replied, also in a postscript,
"I will try to innoculate the[m]...with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not get the disease myself."
....To Bouquet's postscript, Amherst replied,
"You will do well as to try to innoculate the Indians by means of blankets as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this exorable race."
On June 24, Captain Ecuyer, of the Royal Americans, noted in his journal:
"Out of our regard for them (i.e. two Indian chiefs) we gave them two blankets and a handkerchief out of the smallpox hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."
(quoted from Stearn, E. and Stearn, A. "Smallpox Immunization of the Amerindian.", Bulletin of the History of Medicine 13:601-13.)

Thornton goes on to report that smallpox spread to the tribes along the Ohio river.

This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.
(c)Paul Halsall Aug 1997

Lord Jeffrey1 Amherst's letters discussing germ warfare against American Indians

Jeffrey1 Amherst and Smallpox Blankets

Lord Jeffrey1 Amherst's letters discussing germ warfare against American Indians

"... every Tree is become an Indian...." Colonel Henry Bouquet to General Amherst, dated 29 June 1763. [63k]

Lord Jeff

Lord Jeffrey1 Amherst was commanding general of British forces in North America during the final battles of the so-called French & Indian war (1754-1763). He won victories against the French to acquire Canada for England and helped make England the world's chief colonizer at the conclusion of the Seven Years War among the colonial powers (1756-1763).
The town of Amherst, Massachusetts, was named for Lord Jeff even before he became a Lord. Amherst Collegewas later named after the town. It is said the local inhabitants who formed the town preferred another name, Norwottuck, after the Indians whose land it had been; the colonial governor substituted his choice for theirs. Frank Prentice Rand, in his book, The Village of Amherst: A Landmark of Light [Amherst, MA: Amherst Historical Society, 1958], says that at the time of the naming, Amherst was "the most glamorous military hero in the New World. ... ...the name was so obvious in 1759 as to be almost inevitable." [p. 15]

Amherst College china plate: English chasing Indians back of Amherst College china plate

Amherst College china plates depicting mounted Englishman with sword chasing Indians on foot were in use until the 1970's.

Click on the pictures to see full-size images in new windows.

The history of the naming of the town of Amherst, New York, shows a similar idolizing of the general:
On April 10, 1818, the Town of Amherst was officially created by an Act of the Senate of the State of New York. This new town was named for Sir Jeffrey Amherst, an English lord who was Commander-in-Chief of the British troops in America in 1758-1763, before the American Revolution. King George III rewarded Lord Amherst by giving him 20,000 acres in New York, but Lord Amherst never visited his new lands. [From: A Brief History of the Town of Amherst, (Amherst Museum, 1997)

Smallpox blankets

Despite his fame, Jeffrey Amherst's name became tarnished by stories of smallpox-infected blankets used as germ warfare against American Indians. These stories are reported, for example, in Carl Waldman's Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985]. Waldman writes, in reference to a siege of Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) by Chief Pontiac's forces during the summer of 1763:
... Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort -- an early example of biological warfare -- which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer. [p. 108]
Some people have doubted these stories; other people, believing the stories, nevertheless assert that the infected blankets were not intentionally distributed to the Indians, or that Lord Jeff himself is not to blame for the germ warfare tactic.

drawing by Terry R. Peters
Drawing by Terry R. Peters, Medical Illustrator, Topeka (Kansas) Veterans Administration Medical Center. Used with permission. Click on image to view full size in new window.

Lord Jeff's letters during Pontiac's Rebellion

The documents provided here are made available to set the record straight. These are images of microfilmed original letters written between General Amherst and his officers and others in his command during the summer of 1763, when the British were fighting what became known as Pontiac's Rebellion.
Pontiac, an Ottawa chief who had sided with the French, led an uprising against the British after the French surrender in Canada. Indians were angered by Amherst's refusal to continue the French practice of providing supplies in exchange for Indian friendship and assistance, and by a generally imperious British attitude toward Indians and Indian land. As Waldman puts it:
... Lord Jeffrey Amherst, the British commander-in-chief for America, believed ... that the best way to control Indians was through a system of strict regulations and punishment when necessary, not "bribery," as he called the granting of provisions. [p. 106]

The British Manuscript Project

The documents provided here are among Amherst's letters and other papers microfilmed as part of the British Manuscript Project, 1941-1945, undertaken by the United States Library of Congress during World War II. The project was designed to preserve British historical documents from possible war damage. There are almost three hundred reels of microfilm on Amherst alone.
The microfilm is difficult to read, and paper copies even harder. Nonetheless, the images obtained by scanning the copies are sufficiently clear for online viewing. The images are of key excerpts from the letters. An index is provided to show by microfilm document number the location of the imaged documents in the microfilm set. Text files of the excerpts are also provided.

The documents

These are the pivotal letters:
These letters also discuss the use of dogs to hunt the Indians, the so-called "Spaniard's Method," which Amherst approves in principle, but says he cannot implement because there are not enough dogs. In a letter dated 26 July 1763, Bouquet acknowledges Amherst's approval [125k] and writes, "all your Directions will be observed."
Historian Francis Parkman, in his book The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada [Boston: Little, Brown, 1886] refers to a postscript in an earlier letter from Amherst to Bouquet wondering whether smallpox could not be spread among the Indians:
Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]
I have not found this letter, but there is a letter from Bouquet to Amherst, dated 23 June 1763, [189k] three weeks before the discussion of blankets to the Indians, stating that Captain Ecuyer at Fort Pitt (to which Bouquet would be heading with reinforcements) has reported smallpox in the Fort. This indicates at least that the writers knew the plan could be carried out.
It is curious that the specific plans to spread smallpox were relegated to postscripts. I leave it to the reader to ponder the significance of this.
Several other letters from the summer of 1763 show the smallpox idea was not an anomaly. The letters are filled with comments that indicate a genocidal intent, with phrases such as:
Amherst's correspondence during this time includes many letters on routine matters, such as officers who are sick or want to be relieved of duty; accounts of provisions on hand, costs for supplies, number of people garrisoned; negotiations with provincial governors (the army is upset with the Pennsylvania assembly, for example, for refusing to draft men for service); and so on. None of these other letters show a deranged mind or an obsession with cruelty. Amherst's venom was strictly reserved for Indians.

The French and the Indians

The sharpest contrast with letters about Indians is provided by letters regarding the other enemy, the French. Amherst has been at war with the French as much as with the Indians; but he showed no obsessive desire to extirpate them from the earth. They were apparently his "worthy" enemy. It was the Indians who drove him mad. It was they against whom he was looking for "an occasion, to extirpate them root and branch." [J. C. Long, Lord Jeffrey Amherst: A Soldier of the King (NY: Macmillan, 1933), p. 187]
Long describes Amherst's "kindliness to the French" and refers to Amherst's "intensity of feeling on these issues":
Amherst's kindliness to the French civilians was more than a military gesture. He had a warm sympathy for the countryside, an interest in people and the way they lived. "The Inhabitants live comfortably," he observed in his journal, "most have stone houses.... ....
This humane attitude was reflected in his rules for the governing of Canada. As its de facto military Governor-General he established a temporary code ... a program of tolerance and regard for colonial sensibilities....
Perhaps most statesmanlike of all was Amherst's recognition of the French law, ... a recognition which permitted change of national loyalty without social upheaval. [p. 137]

drawing by R. Smirke, engraved and published 1811
Drawing by R. Smirke, engraved by P. Audinet & published by J. Stratford 112 Holborn Hill, May 18, 1811, entitled "The Humanity of General Amherst." Courtesy of William Plowden, London, England, who writes: "The image appears to refer to the end of a siege or battle in which some Caucasians have surrendered to General Amherst who is, presumably, treating them more humanely than may have been expected." Note the curious figure, right background, who appears to be West Indian. Click on image to view full engraving in new window.

In contrast to these kindly feelings, Long says that Pontiac's attacks on British forts at Detroit and Presqu'Isle "aroused Amherst to a frenzy, a frenzy almost hysterical in its impotence." Long then quotes from Amherst's letter to Sir William Johnson:
... it would be happy for the Provinces there was not an Indian settlement within a thousand Miles of them, and when they are properly punished, I care not how soon they move their Habitations, for the Inhabitants of the Woods are the fittest Companions for them, they being more nearly allied to the Brute than to the Human Creation. [p.186]
Colonel Bouquet's poetic line, "... every Tree is become an Indian," [63k] quoted above, was his description of a contagion of fear among "the terrified Inhabitants," for whom the Indians were a part of the wildness they perceived around themselves. Indian warriors would not stand in ordered ranks; they fell back into the forests only to emerge again in renewed attack; their leaders defied British logic and proved effective against a string of British forts; these were the enemy that nearly succeeded in driving the British out, and became the target for British genocide.2


All in all, the letters provided here remove all doubt about the validity of the stories about Lord Jeff and germ warfare. The General's own letters sustain the stories.
As to whether the plans actually were carried out, Parkman has this to say:
... in the following spring, Gershom Hicks, who had been among the Indians, reported at Fort Pitt that the small-pox had been raging for some time among them....
An additional source of information on the matter is the Journal of William Trent, commander of the local militia of the townspeople of Pittsburgh during Pontiac's seige of the fort. This Journal has been described as "... the most detailed contemporary account of the anxious days and nights in the beleaguered stronghold." [Pen Pictures of Early Western Pennsylvania, John W. Harpster, ed. (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1938).]
Trent's entry for May 24, 1763, includes the following statement:
... we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.
Trent's Journal confirms that smallpox had broken out in Fort Pitt prior to the correspondence between Bouquet and Amherst, thus making their plans feasible. It also indicates that intentional infection of the Indians with smallpox had been already approved by at least Captain Ecuyer at the fort, who some commentators have suggested was in direct correspondence with General Amherst on this tactic (though I have not yet found such letters).


1. There is some dispute about the spelling of Amherst's first name. As Lion G. Miles points out, 'Amherst always signed as "Jeff:" so there has been a long-standing controversy as to the correct spelling of his first name. I am reasonably certain that it should be "Jeffery." Those officers closest to him, his aides etc., always spelled the name that way and transcribed his orders as from "Jeffery." Official letters addressed to him from England and the British Army List have it as "Sir Jeffery Amherst" (never mind that Bouquet solved the problem by addressing him as "Jeffry"). Even the biography by Long … has the title of "Lord Jeffery Amherst," not "Jeffrey."' [Lion G. Miles, member of the board, Native American Institute at Hudson, NY, in a personal email communication, 15 November 1998]
2. The depiction of Indians as wild beasts was quite common among early American leaders, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. David E. Stannard writes: 'As is so often the case, it was New England's religious elite who made the point more graphically than anyone. Referring to some Indians who had given offense to the colonists, the Reverend Cotton Mather wrote: "Once you have but got the Track of those Ravenous howling Wolves, then pursue them vigourously; Turn not back till they are consumed… Beat them small as the Dust before the Wind." Lest this be regarded as mere rhetoric, empty of literal intent, consider that another of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, the Reverend Solomon Stoddard, as late as 1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs "to hunt Indians as they do bears."' [American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New World (New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press (1992)), p. 241]

Additional Sources of Information

1. Medical information

A mild form of smallpox virus, Variola minor (also called alastrim), is transmitted by inhalation and is communicable for 3-7 days. The more serious smallpox virus, Variola major, is transmitted both by inhalation and by contamination; it is communicable by inhalation for 9-14 days and by contamination for several years in a dried state. For further medical information, see Donald A. Henderson, et al., "Smallpox as a Biological Weapon: Medical and Public Health Management," Journal of the American Medical Association Vol. 281 No. 22 (June 9, 1999).
Ann F. Ramenofsky, Vectors of Death: The Archaeology of European Contact (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1987), also discusses the question of communicability:
Among Class I agents, Variola major holds a unique position. Although the virus is most frequently transmitted through droplet infection, it can survive for a number of years outside human hosts in a dried state (Downie 1967; Upham 1986). As a consequence, Variola major can be transmitted through contaminated articles such as clothing or blankets (Dixon 1962). In the nineteenth century, the U.S. Army sent contaminated blankets to Native Americans, especially Plains groups, to control the Indian problem (Stearn and Stearn 1945). [p. 148]
Abraham B. Bergman, et al., "A Political History of the Indian Health Service," comments on the birth of the Indian Health Service:
Federal health services for Indians began under War Department auspices in the early 1800's. At that time the Federal Indian policy was primarily one of military containment. As early as 1802 Army physicians took emergency measures to curb contagious diseases among Indian tribes in the vicinity of military posts. The first large scale smallpox vaccination of Indians was authorized by Congress in 1832, probably launched more to protect US soldiers than to benefit Indians. [unpaginated draft, quoted with permission from the author and the Seattle Indian Health Board; publication data: Bergman, Abraham B., et al. "A Political History of the Indian Health Service." The Milbank Quarterly 77, no. 4 (1999):571-604]

2. Social and Political Effects of Disease

E. Wagner Stearn & Allen E. Stearn, The Effect of Smallpox on the Destiny of the Amerindian (Boston: Bruce Humphries (1945)), point out the social-political effects of smallpox:
Smallpox, which was introduced into the mainland of the Americas in the early part of the sixteenth century, not only decimated the native population for four centuries, but so demoralized the tribes through the terror it spread among them that it has been considered by many authorities to have been an important factor in their comparatively easy subjugation by the whites. Before the advent of the white man tribal warfare and, at times, famine made the chief inroads on the native population, but during the period of exploration and settlement the diseases of the white man, new to the native, caused terrific havoc. It is claimed that Haiti (Espanola) alone lost two-thirds of its population in the three years of Columbus's conquest, during the years 1492-1495. The two to three hundred inhabitants had quickly fallen prey not only to ruthless conquest but to a variety of infectious diseases. [p. 13]
Harold Napoleon, Yuuyaraq: the Way of the Human Being, with commentary, edited by Eric Madsen (Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska, College of Rural Alaska, Center for Cross-Cultural Studies (1991)), states that epidemics caused a form of post-traumatic stress disorder and social collapse:
Compared to the span of life of a culture, the Great Death was instantaneous. The Yup'ik world was turned upside down, literally overnight. Out of the suffering, confusion, desperation, heartbreak, and trauma was born a new generation of Yup'ik people. They were born into shock. They woke to a world in shambles, many of their people and their beliefs strewn around them, dead. In their minds they had been overcome by evil. Their medicines and their medicine men and women had proven useless. Everything they had believed in had failed. Their ancient world had collapsed.

From their innocence and from their inability to understand and dispel the disease, guilt was born into them. They had witnessed mass death—evil—in unimaginable and unacceptable terms. These were the men and women orphaned by the sudden and traumatic death of the culture that had given them birth. They would become the first generation of modern-day Yup'ik. [p. 11]
The survivors taught almost nothing about the old culture to their children. It was as if they were ashamed of it, and this shame they passed on to their children by their silence and by allowing cultural atrocities to be committed against their children. The survivors also gave up all governing power of the villages to the missionaries and school teachers, whoever was most aggressive. There was no one to contest them. In some villages the priest had displaced the angalkuq. In some villages there was theocracy under the benevolent dictatorship of a missionary. The old guardians of Yuuyaraq on the other hand, the angalkuq, if they were still alive, had fallen into disgrace. They had become a source of shame to the village, not only because their medicine and Yuuyaraq had failed, but also because the missionaries now openly accused them of being agents of the devil himself and of having led their people into disaster. [pp. 13-14]

3. Other writers on Amherst and smallpox

A.1. Elizabeth A. Fenn, "Biological Warfare in Eighteenth-Century North America: Beyond Jeffrey Amherst," Journal of American History vol. 86, no. 4 (March, 2000), pp. 1552-1580:
Our preoccupation with Amherst has kept us from recognizing that accusations of what we now call biological warfare—the military use of smallpox in particular—arose frequently in eighteenth-century America. Native Americans, moreover, were not the only accusers. By the second half of the century, many of the combatants in America's wars of empire had the knowledge and technology to attempt biological warfare with the smallpox virus. Many also adhered to a code of ethics that did not constrain them from doing so. Seen in this light, the Amherst affair becomes not so much an aberration as part of a larger continuum in which accusations and discussions of biological warfare were common, and actual incidents may have occurred more frequently than scholars have previously acknowledged. [p. 1553]
A.2. Elizabeth A. Fenn expands on this theme in her book, Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-82 (NY: Hill and Wang, 2001), discussing widespread accusations and examples of biological warfare on the American continent during this period. Selected excerpts from the book are presented on a separate page.
B. Helen Jaskoski, "'A Terrible Sickness Among Them': Smallpox Stories of the Frontier," in Helen Jaskoski, ed., Early Native American Writing: New Critical Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 136-157:
Three nineteenth-century historians who wrote about the colonial Great Lakes area recorded accounts of smallpox epidemics and their origins. The most widely known smallpox story comes from Francis Parkman's The Conspiracy of Pontiac (1870). Ottawa political leader Andrew J. Blackbird relates a similar story from the same period of the French and Indian War in his History of the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan (1887). William Whipple Warren, a Minnesota Ojibwa historian and legislator, offers two very different accounts of an epidemic that took place in Minnesota in the 1780s in his History of the Ojibway People (1885). Comparison of these historians' smallpox stories enlarges our understanding of the history and epidemiology of the disease in the particular period. The smallpox stories also offer insight into alternative conceptualizations of the experience that historians a century later envisioned as the "frontier." One other Ojibwa historian, George Copway, who does not tell a smallpox story, offers in his Indian Life and Indian History (1860) such a paradigm for understanding events of the time - including smallpox epidemics - as they were experienced by the native communities. [pp. 137-138]
An excerpt from Blackbird's History, with Jaskoski's introduction and commentary, are presented on a separate page.
C. Adrienne Mayor, "The Nessus Shirt in the New World: Smallpox Blankets in History and Legend," Journal of American Folklore 108(427):54-77 (1995):
One name is repeatedly linked to the story of the smallpox blanket: Jeffrey Amherst. In 1851, Francis Parkman was the first historian to document Lord Amherst's "shameful plan" to exterminate Indians by giving them smallpox-infected blankets taken from the corpses of British soldiers at Fort Pitt in 1763 (Parkman 1991:646-651). The feasibility of the documented plan, whether or not it was successfully carried out, has given credibility and moral impact to the fears expressed in all poison-garment tales. The Amherst incident itself has taken on legendary overtones as believers and nonbelievers continue to argue over the facts and their interpretation. [p. 57]
D. Robert L. O'Connell, Of Arms and Men: A History of War, Weapons, and Aggression (NY and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989):
Marking a milestone of sorts, certain colonists during the French and Indian Wars resorted to trading smallpox-contaminated blankets to local tribes with immediate and devastating results. While infected carcasses had long been catapulted into besieged cities, this seems to be the first time a known weakness in the immunity structure of an adversary population was deliberately exploited with a weapons response. [p. 171]
E. R. G. Robertson, Rotting Face: Smallpox and the American Indian (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Press, 2001):
With the surrender of New France to Great Britain, command of the English North American military forces fell to Lord Jeffrey Amherst. An arrogant aristocrat who despised all Indians, Amherst withheld gunpowder and lead from France's former native allies, stating that England's enemies ought to be punished, not rewarded. When informed that the tribes depended on their muskets for taking game and would starve without ammunition, he remained unswayed, callously informing his aides that they should seed the complaining bands with smallpox so as to lend starvation a speedy hand. [p. 119; with footnote to Herman J. Viola, After Columbus (Washington: Smithsonian Books, 1990), 98]
In the spring of 1763, during the Indian uprising led by Ottawa Chief Pontiac, a party of Delawares ringed British owned Fort Pitt (now Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), calling for its surrender. Captain Simeon Ecuyer, a Swiss mercenary and the fort's senior officer, saved the garrison by giving the Delawares a gift—two blankets and a handkerchief. The Indians readily accepted the offering, but still demanded that Ecuyer vacate the stockade. They had no inkling that the blankets and kerchief were more deadly than a platoon of English sharpshooters. Ecuyer had ordered the presents deliberately infected with smallpox spores at the post hospital. By mid July, the Delawares were dying as though they had been raked by a grape cannonade. Fort Pitt remained firmly in English hands. [with footnote to Robert M. Utley and Wilcomb E. Washburn, Indian Wars (New York: American Heritage, 1977; Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987)]
The same year, British General Sir Jeffrey Amherst urged Colonel Henry Bouquet to figure some way of infecting France's Indian allies with smallpox. On July 13, the colonel wrote that he would attempt seeding some blankets with Variola, then send them to the warring tribes. Recognizing the risk of such a tactic, Bouquet expressed the hope that he would not catch the sickness himself. Whether the plan was ever carried out is unknown. [p. 124; with footnote to John Duffy, "Smallpox and the Indians in the American Colonies," Bulletin of the History of Medicine 25 (1951): 324-341]
F. Mark Wheelis, "Biological warfare before 1914," in E. Geissler and J. Moon, Biological and Toxin Weapons: Research, Development and Use from the Middle Ages to 1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 8-34:
[Historical events and records] suggest that the use of smallpox as a weapon may have been widely entertained by British military commanders, and may have been employed without scruple when opportunity offered, possibly on a number of occasions. [p. 29]

Other Links

myreportlinks.com seal of approval Hosted by NativeWeb
Author of this site is Peter d'Errico ©
Copyright permission for educational use only, with credit to author and URL
This site is a mirror of http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/amherst/lord_jeff.html at the University of Massachusetts/Amherst, Department of Legal Studies

White lynch mob uses Ward Churchill to deny biological warfare

This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.
Maoist Internationalist Movement

Crackers in denial on smallpox warfare against natives:

White lynch mob uses Ward Churchill to deny biological warfare

  • Lord Jeffrey Amherst's letters on biological warfare against natives
  • Not just one, but two separate u.$. officers documented as involved
  • British army used smallpox against American revolutionaries
  • See our Ward Churchill page
  • Amherst, MA--There is no statue to Lord Jeffrey Amherst at Amherst College or the town it resides in in Massachusetts. According to the Town Manager-- there being no mayor yet--there is also no exhibit. Yet, this small town in Western Massachusetts and Lord Jeffrey Amherst are in the news, because of a concerted reactionary effort to remove Ward Churchill from a tenured professorship at the University of Colorado.
    There aren't any mementoes to Lord Jeffrey Amherst at Amherst town hall.
    Typical of the slander and libel campaign against Ward Churchill is a statement by "Chad Fairbanks" at the website "Free Republic," which is a website of military veterans often in the top five for all political websites in terms of website popularity in the united $tates--thanks to a band of hard- core but aging crackpots who wanted a nuclear exchange over the Vietnam War. Writing to "fuquadukie," "Fairbanks" said, "The man is a chronic liar, a poseur, and intellectually dishonest (see his claims of government smallpox epidemics against indians done deliberately, for instance) and has done more to harm American Indians than any other white man in recent decades." (1) As of almost a month later on March 8, there is still not a statement anywhere in the Free Republic thread acknowleding the documented cases of whites' giving indigenous people smallpox infected blankets. It is Lord Jeffrey Amherst who left behind documents describing this effort and providing the world the first glimpse into biological warfare. Another thread on the "Free Republic" said much the same irresponsible thing without rebuttal or mention of the real history of the united $tates again referring to Churchill for: "making up the story about smallpox blankets."(2)
    The Free Republic is also an excellent example of the kind of social forces involved in attacking Ward Churchill. There are 26.4 million veterans in the united $tates, more than one in seven voting age people.(3) Although not all veterans are pathetic reactionaries like the Free Republic, it is true that as the founding fathers predicted, having a large standing army builds a professional self-interest in society--a special interest. When a professor attacks the u.$. military for using biological weapons on indigenous people, there is a risk that more than one in seven voting age people will take it persynally and then lobby for his removal. In a society with one in seven hundred as veterans, the risk would be virtually non-existent.
    The Ward Churchill case is an excellent example of why democracy for the white trash in not a good thing. The white trash does not favor civil liberties or it would be for prosecuting those responsible for conspiring against Ward Churchill --so that misuse of the word "democracy" to mean liberty is out of place. For the white trash, democracy means political equality and that everyone's "opinion" is as good as everyone else's, and this in a wide range of things that the white trash deems somehow fuzzy. This same white trash would not be caught dead saying that their opinion of how to check for colon cancer is as good as anyone else's. Nor would they claim to know how to put together a NASCAR vehicle in a competitive event, but let politics come up and any ignorant slobbery will do: "My daughter is a tenured professor and I would fire her in a heartbeat just for some of the nutty ideas she has. But that's just me. I should have taken her to the woodshed more often when she was little. Back then she seemed like a pretty reasonable sort. The university education twisted her mind and it got worse when she married a flaming liberal who is worse than she is. There's no hope of ever convincing either of them that they are brainwashed. They truly believe that they are more intelligent than the great 'unwashed'. Their elitism and arrogance makes me ill." (1)

    Amherst College has some silly bourgeois statues, but none for its namesake.
    We should be clear that this is not some kind of radical proletarian attack on the class structure. Quite the contrary, it is a religious defense of the class structure, an attack on the Enlightenment itself. These reactionaries want more church and advertising brainwashing and less brainwashing by professors. Then they wonder why Amerikan educational standards do not compare internationally while u.$. colleges are one of the few export industries.
    In these rabid threads opposing Ward Churchill there are no attempts at factual argument. That is not the point. The real point of Free Republic chauvinists like chauvinists across the united $tates is that only U.$. civilians are innocent and things like the documented use of biological warfare against indigenous people are matters of opinion, not fact.
    To be sure, there are those who dispute Ward Churchill's particular accounting of one small pox outbreak in 1837. The ultra-right loonies are using that academic dispute the same way they are using the bloodline "fraud" idea. They assert something, only to take it back, while knowing full well that most of the infotainment press will report the simple version. So, a Honolulu newspaper publishes that Ward Churchill is not an indigenous persyn. A thousand white trash outlets follow suit, and only a few retract when the original does. Even readers of those outlets that do retract may not notice the retraction. The cumulative effect is the Big Lie. Likewise, in the smallpox outbreak of 1837 controversy, some scholars say some things and a thousand media outlets repeat it as if all the incidents of smallpox infection given by whites to natives were handled in just the one Ward Churchill controversy.
    The David Horowitz types of the world stir up first year students quoted as follows in a major Colorado newspaper: "'Ward Churchill made up stuff that never happened,' said Michael Drost, a freshman in international affairs. 'Students would be expelled for academic dishonesty; why not a tenured professor?'"(4)
    So it goes with the small pox blanket story. In reality, the best one could say for the critics of Ward Churchill, if one reads the fine print, is that they are saying one story of whites' giving natives smallpox infected blankets is not true, while two are already definitively documented. Yet, the political purpose in the press is evident white genocide denial. The story goes that Churchill "made up" the small pox story--without mentioning historical incidents before the one Churchill was talking about, ones already proved. Now there are over 100 Internet links with Ward Churchill's name, the phrase "made up" along with smallpox infected blankets but excluding Amherst's name. That's the Big Lie technique in action. It eliminates not just the 1837 small pox infection, but the definitively deliberate infections before it. The Big Lie technique obliterates that Ward Churchill was merely extending on what was already known, not "making up" something heard about for the first time.
    When we dig down deep into the weenies' lunacy, we find that they are referring not to an academic paper, but a legal briefing Churchill wrote and later expanded upon and included as documentary evidence in a book. We note that none of the idiot scribblers actually said anything successfully contesting the point of the brief: "Churchill made the argument that protesting the parade was tantamount to combating genocide, and was thus his legal duty under international law"(5)-- and that's in the words of the Brown paper against Churchill being cited occasionally and remotely by the McCarthyists as their touchstone.
    Interestingly, while these same whitey genocide-deniers are saying that oral evidence should not be accepted, it is quite obvious that it IS accepted even in the white man's court. So, the point remains that oral history would count as part of Churchill's duty in court--a point left out by the inconsistent.
    Even the quote of Churchill from the McCarthyists' beloved paper(5) shows that Churchill himself did not say the documentary evidence for the 1837 small pox infection was as good as for earlier biological warfare by white settlers. In fact, as Brown himself has admitted, his paper has not yet faced peer review, as of now in 2005.(6) In other words, the reactionaries are whipping up first year students in Colorado to call for firing Ward Churchill on the basis of a paper that has not faced peer review yet. That's clearly sidestepping normal procedures, a part of discrimination.
    It's all obviously discriminatory extra academic review of Ward Churchill's work; even though he received tenure in 1991. It's clearly motivated by a speech he made. The genocide-deniers did not win their struggle on academic grounds so now they stir up a political witch hunt against one man and seek to scapegoat him for all their anti-intellectual, anti-tenure and anti-education frustration.
    Most of these lynch mob activists oppose Mao, but he politicized education while these same lynch mob activists would claim education is not political. When Mao had the Cultural Revolution, education across-the-board had discussion and struggle involving the public. Here in the united $tates, the new McCarthyist counterrevolution targets one man in a conspiracy against civil rights and in alliance with genocide-deniers. That's the difference. We Maoists apply principle across-the- board. McCarthyists apply it only to suit their militarist and genocidal agendas.
    The other difference is that in any Maoist government, the state will pay for education. The cheap bastards degrading education in Colorado and the rest of North America by extension are up in arms at the University of Colorado's paying Ward Churchill's salary, when the state only pays 7% of the school's annual income!(7) The rest comes from students paying to attend. So much for the loony reactionaries' respect for free enterprise! There's no consistency needed when the first priority is denial of white genocide.
    1. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f- news/1341755/posts
    2. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f- news/1339464/posts
    3. http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws- kerry05.html
    4. http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~61~271 8487,00.html
    5. http://hal.lamar.edu/~BROWNTF/Churchill1.htm
    6. http://www.insidehighered.com/insider/a_new_ward_churchill_controversy
    7. http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/cda/article_print/0,1983,BDC_2448_3536907_ARTICLE-DETAIL-PRINT,00.html

    People of Amherst are not pleased with reactionary spin on smallpox warfare against natives

    Amherst, MA--Over 50 people of Amherst have signed the petition for Ward Churchill and launching a criminal investigation into the conspiracy against his civil rights. Everywhere people expressed amazement at how the discussion of smallpox warfare against natives had been so grossly simplified and obliterated. In Amherst, MA, "the story of the smallpox blankets" is not associated with Ward Churchill.
    Some town residents simply said, "why don't they check with a historian?" Town officials advised the same thing.
    A student from Amherst, New Hampshire called for prosecution of those conspiring to deprive Ward Churchill of his civil rights. (3 megabytes, .wav)
    Long time resident of Amherst (1.6 megabytes, .wav)
    Amherst musician supports Ward Churchill (3 megabytes, .wav)
    South Asian physicist from Amherst comments on the biological warfare (2.2 megabytes, .wav)

    Sunday, April 19, 2015

    Forgotten History – Concealed Facts

    HISTORY No Longer Taught in Public Schools – The  truth of the  Cover-Up

     This article came from an Encyclopedia of American History, used to teach school kids until 1955, published by Harper and Row.

     The Book was a school text book and The Consultant Editors were the who’s Who of History Professors and then was edited by Richard B. Morris, Professor of History of Columbia University. This book cannot be found anywhere, because the Publishers were bought out by the Black Pope’s operatives in this country, so it was eliminated.

    [boxcarro, the Arthur Of This Here Blog, also found this here RARE & SUPRESSED Book, First Edition, at AbeBooks.com, First Edition, 1953, Lib. Of Congress # 53-5384, I purchase it about years ago, for $1.00 + S&h.]

     It is 840 pages of a wealth of information. It shows the man who really discovered America. It shows all the land was called the Virginia land company, in dispute with the two corporations; the East India company and the Hudson Bay company. All three companies were owned by British business corporations. Remember; the American did not know, at the time, that the Vatican owned and controlled these British corporations, and their subjects, since the 1214 Treaty the King had with the Vatican’s Pope.
     However, to hide this fact, the King was allowed to be the front for the Vatican (so as to hide this fact), as the modern Mafia has corporations front for them to hide from the FBI and other agencies. So, with that background, we shall see just how far down the slippery slopes of the Corporations of the States and United States are allowed to stifle education, so much so, that people have no clue who they really are and no clue who controls them. I will not make any comment, as it is all from the history books. You present day people, under 58, never have seen books in schools like this. IF I DO MAKE COMMENTS, it will be in all CAPS with [[[brackets around them]]]. The bolds are from the book itself and is not by chapters, but by the era of the time periods and you are referred to other pages of the book. So one is constantly going back and forth in the book.

     This sets the stage for the states to operate as they do today. Basically, it is to show you all states were and are corporations and not a government created by the common man and women as taught you today. That is one Myth I talk about in the MYTH and The Reality book. The reason this book was eliminated from Grade 8 to grade 12, was to keep the young child’s impressionable mind closed, so no reasoning powers could develop to ask questions. Basically, this is why kids graduating from schools today can read, but they have no comprehension of the words they read.
    As my kids grew up in the 60′s and 70′s they did not have this teaching book as I had. In conversing with the Newspaper Guild in Washington, D.C., in 1993, I asked, “What are all the newspapers printed at?” They said a stunning fifth-grade level. I asked why? They stated that to write any higher-grade level would turn away advertisers, because the people could not understand a word above a fifth-grade level. I asked, “All papers?” They said no, the two papers written at a ninth-grade level are the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.
     Now, I understand it is down to a fourth-grade level. If you ever wondered why so many adults are NOT smarter than a fifth grader, it should be evident. But in all fairness to some people: The woman across the road home schools her kids. They are very smart and read some of my books and can understand them, while many a person fighting the agencies of the corporations cannot comprehend what a 15-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl can. They, the adults, were corporation-schooled to dumb them down as said by many men and women of 55 and older. When I was in high school reading this very book, I was not educated as to who owned the United States, if all were corporations. And neither mom nor dad could explain. I was told that the Constitution was created to protect the people and was written by the people. So at the age of 16, what is a young man’s and a young girl’s thoughts on? Surely not who runs the corporations.
     So, the Myth that the owner of all the States and United States was never revealed to me until I reached the age of 43. I pulled out the history book, part of which you will read, then it all started to make sense and why no one could tell me who owned the corporation called “State of So and So” and the corporation called “The United States.” The book was pulled the year after I left high school in 1954. I graduated 52 out of a class of 170, so I was not an exceptionally smart student.

    After reading again what I missed in ’47 to ’54, I got real smart and I hope everyone reading this will remember that everything called government is nothing but a private corporation out to make as much profit as it can at your expense. That’s what corporations do to stay alive.

     Chapter 1
    This starts in the book 16 pages in, with the heading “Columbus and Subsequent Exploration”. It is from 1451 and ends 1635. I NOW QUOTE THE BOOK:
     1497, 2 May-6 August 1st Cabot Voyage. Cabot born in Italy, real name Caboto, migrated to England 1484-90, where he lived in Bristol as a merchant. Henry VII issued in 1497 to the Cabots, John and his three sons, a Patent to discover for England regions to the east, west and north (avoiding Portuguese claims). In return for a trade monopoly and custom exemptions, the Cabots were to turn over to the crown 20% of all trading profits. They left England May, 1497 with a crew and prominent merchants. He sighted land June 24th, took possession of Newfoundland for Henry VII and sailed to Maine. It appears that Cabot’s company explored the coast of North America as far south as Delaware or Chesapeake Bay. [[[THIS WAS ALSO CLAIMED FOR HENRY VII.]]]
     1576 to 1606 English search for North west passage. Martin Frobisher sailed from England (June 1576) and pressed northwest after sighting Greenland until he reached Baffin Island and entered Frobisher Bay, believing it to be a straight between America and Asia. [[[NOTE THEY CALLED THE COUNTRY, AMERICA.]]] To exploit his discovery, the Company of Cathay was organized both for mining operations, which he conducted in Baffin Land. He returned to Bristol with 200 tons of ore. Now it tells much more than this; George Weymouth, backed by the East India Company, had to turn back because of mutiny. John Knight, sponsored by both the East India company and Muscovy Cos., explored the shores of newfound land and LABRADOR. [[[AS YOU CAN READ, ALL THIS WAS DONE BY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS OF ENGLAND, GIVEN PATENTS BY HENRY VII, NOT REALIZING THEY WERE ALL CONTROLLED BY THE VATICAN AFTER THE APRIL 14, 1214 TREATY WAS SIGNED BY THE POPE AND KING JOHN. THIS CAN BE FOUND IN MANY OF THE INFORMER'S BOOKS, JAMES MONTGOMERY'S RESEARCH AND IN NUMEROUS OTHER BOOKS OF HISTORY, INCLUDING THE PAPAL BULLS OF THE VATICAN.]]]

    Chapter 2
     The founding of the English Colonies 1578- 1734
     1578-83 Virginia; Sir Humphrey Gilbert, obtained a patent June 11 from Queen Elizabeth for the discovery and colonization in northwest America. But his plan to establish a colony as a base against Spain had to await financial support.
     1584-1602 Raleigh’s Colony; Sir Walter Raleigh, a half-brother of Gilbert and a member of his last expedition, was granted a virtual renewal of the Gilbert patent Raleigh, explored and called his find Virginia.
     1605-1606 George Weymouth sailed under the auspices of the Earl of Southampton and the latter’s Roman Catholic son-in-law, Sir Thomas Arundel, ostensibly to establish a colony for Catholics who found their position in England insecure.
     The account of Guy Fawkes arrest (Nov. 4, 1605) narrated in James Rosier’s Relation, prompted two interrelated groups of merchants, from London and Plymouth, to petition the Crown [[[THE CROWN IS NOT THE KING, BUT THE CROWN BANK RULING THE KING AND QUEENS, FOR AN EXPLANATION ONE HAS TO READ THE BOOK, "THE MYTH AND THE REALITY—JUST WHO OWNS THE UNITED STATES" AND JAMES MONTGOMERY'S ARTICLES.]]] for a patent. Under its TERMS two Virginia Companies — the London (or South Virginia) Company and the Plymouth (or North Virginia) Company were established. The former was authorized to settle in a region between 34 degrees N and 41 degrees N (present NY City); the latter 45 degrees N and 38 degrees N (present Washington, DC). [[[YOU SEE THAT THE VIRGINIA LAND COMPANY DID NOT MEAN PRESENT VIRGINIA. IT MEANT FROM MAINE TO GEORGIA AND AS FAR WEST AS THE PA - OHIO BORDER. THIS HISTORY BOOK SHOWS THIS ON THE MAPS. CORPORATIONS RAN THE PLANTATIONS, JUST AS THEY DO NOW.]]]
     1619-24 Final period of company control; The harsh legal code was repealed. A general assembly, comprising 22 burgesses (2 chosen by the planters from each town, hundred, or plantation.) [[[ THE DEFINITION OF PLANTATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FARMING. THE DEFINITION IS GIVEN IN BURKES Conciliation with the Colonies TO WIT;]]] “PLANTATIONS = colonies: the plantings of a new society or race. The term is regularly so used in acts and charters and has no reference whatever to cultivation of the soil.” page 81 note 12. [[[ERGO, WE HAVE BUSINESS PEOPLE NOW RUNNING THE COMPANY THAT ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES, NOT THE HUGE COMPANIES IN ENGLAND.]]]
     1642-52 Wyatt’s successor,Sir William Berkeley, introduced a number of reforms, including the abolition of the poll tax. An Indian uprising by Opechancanough was suppressed. The Indians ceded all lands between the York and the James, from the falls of Kecoughton, but retained the territory north of the York. On Jan. 30, 1649, Virginia [[[THE LAND COMPANY, NOT THE VIRGINIA OF TODAY.]]] announced its allegiance to the Stuart House, after the execution of Charles I, and gave refuge to prominent cavaliers. In retaliation, Parliament passed an Act (Oct. 1650) imposing a blockade on Virginia and subsequently dispatched two armed vessels with commissioners who received the submission of Berkeley and the council (1652), upon liberal terms. Following a new election, the burgesses chose as Governor Richard Bennett, one of the Parliamentary commissioners. Samuel Matthews, threatened to dissolve the burgesses(1658). With the death of Matthews the burgesses asserted “supreme power”, until lawful authority might be forth coming from England, and elected the Royalist, Berkeley, Governor (1660). [[[SO FAR, ALL THAT IS RUNNING THE LAND COMPANY, ARE CORPORATE EXECS OF NOBILITY; NO COMMON MAN IS ALLOWED IN THIS PRIVATE CLUB, THAT ALL COLONIES ARE IN SUBMISSION AND THE MEN AND WOMEN ARE RULED BY CORPORATE DICTATES.]]]
     CHAPTER 3
     1606-20 Early Activities of Plymouth company.
     1624-26 Massachusetts Bay. Dorchestor company.
     1628 The New England company.
    1629 The Cambridge Agreement. The position of the Puritans was becoming increasingly insecure after the dissolution of Parliament (1629) and the growing influence of William Laud (Bishop of London), a zealous defender of conformity. Twelve Puritan members of the Massachusetts Bay company signed the Cambridge Agreement, whereby they undertook to emigrate to America, provided the charter and government were transferred thither. The company ratified the agreement (1629)
     1635 Banishment of Roger Williams—Williams arrived in New England (1631), served in the Salem and Plymouth churches and became pastor of the former (early 1635). He attacked the validity of the charter, questioned the right of the civil [[[CORPORATE]]] authorities to legislate in the matters of conscience and urged the Salem church to separate from the rest.
     1635-1638. Attempts to revoke Charter – A Privy Counsel committee (“Lords Commissioners for the Plantations in General,” known as “Land Commission”) ordered the recall of the Charter on the ground it had been surreptitiously obtained and unwarranted overstepped. Georges was ordered to serve a writ of quo warranto on the Massachusetts officials, and the King’s Bench ordered the charter cancelled (1637).
     1631-60 Founding of Connecticut. The Dorchester corporation and Plymouth corporation, along with Edward Winslow of Plymouth, explored the Connecticut Valley as far north as Windsor. On July 7, 1635, a group headed by Lord Saye and Sele, who claimed rights to settle the region on the basis of patent from the Council for New England (assigned by the Earl of Warwick, 1631), authorized John Winthrop, Son of the Bay Colony’s Governor, to take control at the mouth of the Connecticut River.
     1636-56 Rhode Island settlements. Roger Williams established his colony at Seekonk (Providence), solely on the basis of an Indian deed. Roger Williams left for England (1643) to obtain a charter, which was granted him (1644). The general assembly drafted a constitutional structure establishing freedom of conscience, separating church and state, providing for town referenda on laws passed by the assembly and giving to towns, as well as the assembly, the right to initiate laws.
     1638-43 New Hampshire. John Wheelwright, established the Town of Exeter. His settlers signed the Exeter Compact (based on the Mayflower Compact). Wheelwright withdrew to Maine when Portsmouth and Dover conceded the authority to Massachusetts.
     1640-51 Maine. A provincial court was established at York. Massachusetts persisted in its expansionist aims. Despite an appeal by Maine government to Parliament (1651), The Massachusetts General Court held that Maine was legally included within the boundaries of the Bay Colony. [[[HERE IS A CORPORATION TAKING OVER A COLONY, MUCH LIKE WHAT WE HAVE TODAY IN THIS COUNTRY. Is there anything not new under the sun?]]]
     1641-60 Massachusetts as an Independent Commonwealth. Robert Child, and other remonstrants, attacked the Bay Colony for its civil and religious discrimination against non-Puritans and for not observing the laws of England. Winthrop and other magistrates framed a reply and the General Court declared: “Our allegiance binds us not to the laws of England any longer than while we live in England.”. Northern colonies, with the exception of Rhode Island, whose code was of 1647, adhered to the English Common law. Massachusetts, in defiance of Parliament, declared herself an Independent commonwealth. [[[CORPORATION]]]
     1660-75 New England Under the Restoration. Charles II Proclaimed the Restoration imperiled the position of the New England colonies.
     1661-63 The Restoration threatened the independent existence of Connecticut (which had no charter) and Rhode Island, whose charter (1644) now had no legality. John Winthrop, jr., obtained a Royal Charter for Connecticut (1662) whose boundaries were described.

     Chapter 4
    Settlement of the Middle Colonies
     New Netherlands [[[New York QUOTE:]]]
     1610-18 Independent voyages. Following the voyage of Henry Hudson for the Dutch East India Company, several exploring and trading voyages under Dutch auspices were made to that area. The 13 ship owners engaged in trade with the new world, organized the New Netherland Co. (1614)
     June 3, 1621 Founding of Dutch West India Co. Under the leadership of William Usselinx, a prominent merchant, The Dutch West India Co. was chartered by the States General, which participated in its financing. The Charter conferred a trading monopoly and the right to colonize it in the new world and along the west coast of Africa.
     1624 First permanent settlement. 30 families sailed from Amsterdam. On arrival in New York Bay, a small group was left at a fort on Nut (Governors) Island, several families sent to the Delaware where they established Ft. Nassau (now Gloucester, N.J.) It is conjectured, but not established, that some members of this third group settled on Manhattan Island and that mother Walloons crossed the East River to Long Island.
     1629 To promote farm settlement with a view to making the colony self-sufficient, as well as a supply base for the expanding merchant marine of the COMPANY, both in Brazil and the West Indies, the Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions [was drafted], under which the Company was empowered to grant to those transporting 50 settlers, estates fronting 16 miles along navigable rivers and extending inland as far as settlement would permit.
     1638-40 The New Sweden, or New South Co., was organized as successor to a series of trading companies. [[[THIS IS THE PRESENT STATE OF DELAWARE; AND AGAIN, ALL SETTLERS WHERE UNDER CORPORATION CONTROL AS MEMBERS OF THE “COLONY”, JUST LIKE ALL AMERICANS ARE TODAY.]]]
     1647-63 The Dutch members of the New Sweden Co. were bought out and the company reorganized with an increase of capital and an extension of control by the Swedish crown. [[[crown IS THE EXCHEQUER (BANK), NOT THE KING.]]]

     1661-64 The English regarded the Dutch settlement as blocking westward expansion and interfering with the enforcement of the Navigation Acts through clandestine trade in tobacco. “The Company of Royal Adventures to Africa”, with a monopoly of the African slave trade (reincorporated as the Royal African Co., 1663), lost its monopoly (1698). Charles II granted his brother, James, Duke of York, all of Maine, all islands between Cape Cod and the Narrows, and all land from the western boundary of Connecticut to the eastern shore of Delaware Bay, with power to govern, subject to the reservation that judicial appeals might be taken to the crown.
     1664-1668 Nicolls renamed New Amsterdam, New York, in honor of the Duke of York, but permitted the Dutch municipal officers to continue to function and even to name their own successors.
     New Jersey
     1664-1665 The Duke of York granted to John Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret the region between the Hudson and Delaware Rivers. Technically, no governmental rights were conveyed, but the proprietors proceeded to issue their Concessions and Agreements, modeled on the Carolina Concessions, granting freedom of conscience, land on generous terms subject to quitrents and the right of freeholders to send deputies to a general assembly.
     1674-87 Lord Berkeley sold his proprietary rights for 1000 pounds to John Fenwick and Edward Byllinge, fellow Quakers. The province was divided (1676) between East and West Jersey by the Quintipartite Deed between Carteret, Byllinger and William Penn.
     1701-38 In 1701 the Board of Trade [[[BRITISH]]] recommended that the crown [[[BANK OF ENGLAND, NOT THE KING]]] resume control of the private colonies. In 1702, the proprietors surrendered governmental authority to the crown [[[AGAIN, BANK OF ENGLAND, NOT THE KING]]].
     May 16,1624 Revocation of Virginia Co. Charter, making Virginia a Royal colony.

     1696-1782 The Board of Trade, commissioned by William III, comprised 15 members (7 high officials; including Privy Councilors, 8 paid members; including a First Lord of Trade, president of the Board), was empowered to supervise (1) trade and the fisheries, (2) care of the poor, (3) plantation affairs, (4) recommend appointments of colonial officials, (5) review colonial legislation and report[s] to the Privy Council.
     1673-76 The Treasury Board’s colonial functions were greatly expanded as a result of the Navigation Laws (particularly the act of 1673).
     1697 Establishment of Vice Admiralty Courts. Under the Navigation Act of 1696, the Privy Council directed the Board of Trade to establish vice-admiralty courts in the colonies, acting under the governors of New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia, and designated judges and other officers of such courts. [[[WE HAVE THE SAME COURT SYSTEM NOW AS THEN, DESPITE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY. IT'S ALL IN THE 1789 FIRST JUDICIARY ACT, SECTION 34 AND IN MANY LEGAL BOOKS, SUCH AS PROFESSOR BENEDICT'S ADMIRALTY LAW, PUBLISHED BY MATTHEW P BENDER , 7 TH EDITION. IT IS ALSO WRITTEN BY CHARLES WARREN IN HIS TREATISE, THE HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN BAR, PRINTED 1966, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS # 66-24357.]]]
     1632-70 New France to King Williams War
     1689 King William’s War (War of the League of Augsburg)
     1702 Queen Anne’s War
     1739-42 War of Jenkins’ Ear
     1740-48 King George’s War

     1754 The French and Indian War (Seven Years War)
     1784 state constitutions. During the revolution, 11 of the 13 states drew up new constitutions. (R.I. and Conn. continued to use the colonial charters of 1662 and 1663, merely deleting all references to the British Crown.) [[[CROWN; MEANING THE KING, AS IT WAS CAPITALIZED. OTHER REFERENCES OF CROWN, NOT CAPITALIZED, MEANS THE BANKERS (EXCHEQUER). THIS IS WHAT IS CRITICAL IN ANY WRITING, GRAMMAR AND PUNCTUATION IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS REALLY BEING SAID.]]]
     1789 First Presidential Election
     First Congress, under the Constitution, met in New York without a quorum (8 Senators and 13 representatives). House of Representatives organized with 30 of its 59 members present.
     Executive Departments. The first executive department created under the new government was that of Foreign Affairs. Established 27 July, it was officially re designated (15 Sept) Department of State.

     1791 First Bank of the U.S. (1790) Hamilton submitted to the house his report on a national bank. Washington requested members of his cabinet [[[THIS CABINET IS NOTHING OTHER THAN THE COUNCIL OF STATE UNDER THE KING'S CORPORATION LAW]]] to submit written opinions on the constitutionality of the measure. Jefferson’s opinion (15 Feb.), maintaining that the bill was unconstitutional, advanced the doctrine commonly known as “strict constructionist”. Jefferson took as his main ground the 10th Amendment (not yet adopted). The incorporation of the bank, he argued, was not among the powers specifically delegated to Congress. Hamilton’s opinion (23 Feb.), elaborated the powers of “implied powers” (the so called “loose constructionist” view of the Constitution). He contended that the proposed bank was related to the Congressional power to collect taxes and regulate trade. [[[THIS IS AS LAME AN EXCUSE, AS ANY, WHEN YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT IT. FOR, IF IT WAS THAT IMPORTANT TO SIMPLY COLLECT TAXES, WHAT ON EARTH DOES A BANK HAVE TO DO WITH THE ACT OF TAX COLLECTION? YOU HAVE A DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY TO STORE ALL THE TAXES. AND WHAT ABOUT TRADE? WHAT ON EARTH DOES A BANK HAVE TO DO WITH TRADE? THERE WAS MORE TO IT THAN THAT LITTLE CHARADE. MUCH MORE. YOU CAN READ IT IN THIS ARTICLE ON ATGPRESS.COM: HTTP://WWW.ATGPRESS.COM/INFORM/WEP002.HTM.]]]

     End of quoting the Encyclopedia of American history.

    Richard B Morris author of Encyclopedia of American History
     There are much, much more in this book, so, I cut it short. The idea was to show present day Americans, all that went on in this country; that the men and women that came here to settle plantations, were hobbled with corporateness and every city, town and village was nothing but a traders corporation. Then, when the 1776 war started, the corporations of colonies were all a confederation that broke away from the British Rule, but were still owned by that treaty of April 1214, when the King signed his entire empire you just read about, over to the Vatican. So the 1776 war did nothing to free the colonies, or Americans, as they were pledged to the Vatican in April of 1214. The King was nothing but a front man for the corporation of the Vatican and allowed to operate free as he wanted. Just as happened in 1664 to 1668 above in the book. Who actually owns what John Cabot found in the beginning of this book article?

     The Book was a school text book and The Consultant Editors were the who’s Who of History Professors and then was edited by Richard B. Morris, Professor of History of Columbia University. This book cannot be found anywhere, because the Publishers were bought out by the Black Pope’s operatives in this country, so it was eliminated. So, in the long run, the Americans are still controlled by the Vatican. And the crowns you read about in the book, were not the Kings unless specifically named; they were the Bankers (Exchequers) of Europe that controlled all, as they do in America. In a point of fact, all the owners of the federal Reserve are the Exchequers and are the foreign controlled elite of the Vatican. The same ones, not the same persons that were the First Bank of the United States. Maybe you missed it, but if you reread the article, where this is a country named America not the United States. To most Americans, they believe the country is United States. Then why, of all reason, are you called an American and not a United Statesman or something leaving America out? Think a little. If you know the definition of the word “OF” you will know just what the phrase “The United States OF America” is saying.
     When the corporate colonies became States, they retained their corporate character. But, of course, the men and women at that time was kept in the dark; that they were owned by the Vatican and no longer were British subjects and the Vatican proceeded to take over the States, which all were his to begin with, and created the Corporation of the United States. My book, “The Myth and The Reality”, tells how the Vatican did this recapturing of his possessions and why we never won the war against The British. We fought the front man for the owner, that’s all. We won the battle and not the entire war. That is a religious [spiritual] war still ongoing between the Lord and Satan. The Vatican’s organizational Structure, I included in my book, shows Lucifer as top boss of the Vatican’s both Black and white Popes. They, alone, created the Religion of ISLAM for a Distinct purpose. That is now coming to fruition after all these centauries. The Vatican looks 200 to 500 years in the future. Do you look that far in even 1/10th that time into the future, so your offspring’s offspring will have it better?
     What were the names, founding dates, and connections to the King of England by the original 13 colonies? [SOURCE: World Book Encyclopedia (WBE)]
     1067 – Virginia – Charter; by King, to the Virginia Company of London.
     1620 – Massachusetts – Charter; granted by the King, to the Puritans.
     1623 – New Hampshire – King; appointed Council of New England for settlement.
     1624 – New York – Charter; by King, to Duke of York.
     1622 – Connecticut – Charter; by King, to John Winthrop.
     1634 – Maryland – Charter; by King, to Lord Baltimore.
     1636 – Rhode Island – King granted; “Charter of Rhode Island & Providence Plantations”.
     1638 – Delaware – Charter; by King, to Duke of York.
     1643 – Pennsylvania – Grant; by King, to William Penn.
     1653 – North Carolina – Grant; by King, to Sir Robert Heath.
     1660 – New Jersey – Grant; by King, to Duke of York.
     1670 – South Carolina – Grant; by King, to Eight “Lords Proprietors”.
     1733 – Georgia – Grant; by King, to a Corporation entitled: “Trustees for Establishing the Colony of Georgia in America.
     And who sits in the back ground like the Wizard of Oz hiding behind a front, pulling the chains even tighter and calling himself a Vicar of Christ, when his own structure shows Lucifer at the top of the heap, pulling your chains, also, as a member of his private corporation? That’s why no one is a follower of the Lord any more; they follow the dictates of Lucifer’s Minions.

     As the Lord said, if you believe in scriptures altered by the Vatican so many times and I emphasize [the] part of it that no one quotes at all; “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast refused knowledge, I will also refuse thee that thou shall be no Priest to me: and seeing thou hast forgotten the Law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” Hosea 4:6. If that be the case, then one cannot sit on a fence. I generally don’t quote scriptures, but for those that do, this ought to hit home for all that claim Corporate State of US citizenship. And claim to be a Christian.
     Hosea 8:1 & 4… “they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my Law (the Law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus).” Hosea 8:1b (with Romans 8:2 in parentheses added); and, “They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not:…” Hosea 8:4a. “And I heard another voice from heaven say: Go out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues: . . .” Revelations 18:4.
     “Then Peter and the Apostles answered, and said, ‘We ought rather to obey God than men.’” Acts, 5:29.
     And even these Courts Recognize; even they are not above The Lords law that I have quoted many a time falling on deaf ears.
     Now, all acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice, are, in our laws, and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice. Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114, 1 Va. Reports Ann. 58, 61 (1772) aff’d. Gregory v. Baugh, 29 Va. 681, 29 Va. Rep. Ann. 466, 2 Leigh 665 (1831) And cited 8 Co. 118. a. Bonham’s case. Hob. 87; 7. Co. 14. a. Calvin’s case.
     Many have ignored truth on atgpress, when given, to their standing with the Lord. That’s all self-evident. Those that want to believe in Myths rather than Truth; well, tell it to the Lord, if you ever meet him.

    Related articles
    The Myth of the Morally Superior Yankee by Thomas J. DiLorenzo (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
    Remembering John Belushi. Read His Bio (commuteresources101.wordpress.com)
    Cabot Oil & Gas Provides Operations Update, Reports Success in Marcellus, Marmaton and Eagle Ford (sacbee.com)
    How Henry VII branded the Tudors (guardian.co.uk)
    Slavery by Consent -The UNITED STATES CORPORATION (usapartisan.com)
    Popping Out to Say Hello… (tudortutor.com)
    The “I”s Have It (tudortutor.com)
    Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation Announces First Quarter Profits, Record Quarterly Production Volumes (sacbee.com)
    Cabot Oil & Gas Provides Operations Update, Reports Success in Marcellus, Marmaton and Eagle Ford (prnewswire.com)
    Review: The Winter King by Thomas Penn (sparrowreads.com)
    Do Your Children Attend Public School? (lewrockwell.com)
    The Horrors of State-Run Schools and Schooling (lewrockwell.com)
    One-world governance policies begin in New Rochelle, NY (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
    Prison Planet.com ” Experts Agree: War On Terror Is A Racket, CIA And Wall Street Are Financed By Global Drug Trade (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
    California University Student Hacks Online Election (bradblog.com)
    American Society, The Next 4 Years (economicoutlaw.wordpress.com)
    Is It Warm in Here? (thestreetwhereyoulive.wordpress.com)
    What Must Be Silenced (disquietreservations.blogspot.com)
    H.l. Mencken Was Right (theburningplatform.com)
    Pathways to the Common Core + a Giveaway (twowritingteachers.wordpress.com)
    The State: It’s Just an Act! (musicians4freedom.com)
    The Self-Contradictory US Constitution (lewrockwell.com)
    Slavery by Consent -The UNITED STATES CORPORATION (federaljack.com)
    UNALIENABLE RIGHTS – the issue of unalienable rights – what they are – where they come from – why they’re so important. (jhaines6.wordpress.com)
    Guest Post: Has America Been Crippled By Intellectual Idiots? (zerohedge.com)
    Has America Been Crippled By Intellectual Idiots? (activistpost.com)
    FreedomProject Education: In the Tradition of the Founders (postamericana.wordpress.com)
    Anonymous Judge Blows the Whistle: America is nothing more than a large Plantation and ‘We the People’ are the Slaves (jhaines6.wordpress.com)
    Secrets of the Shadow Makers: Unidentified Flying Objects and the real Men in Black (overmanwarrior.wordpress.com)
    [Blogger] Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom: In Defense of the LGBT community by Jose Mario De Vega (hronlineph.com)
    School vouchers and the religious subversion of church-state separation | Katherine Stewart (guardian.co.uk)
    The North American War Theater: Objectives, Tactics, And Agents of Oppression (disquietreservations.blogspot.com)
    | Trials without crimes or evidence! (truthaholics.wordpress.com)
    Hump Day Link-Around (nicedeb.wordpress.com)
    The “Imperfect” Document (musicians4freedom.com)
    The Power of Eminent Domain: A History of Abuse (uculr.com)
    Federal Reserve Banking System (blacklistednews.com)
    Guest Post: We’re All Nixonians Now (zerohedge.com)
    Gingrich In Video Which Claims Constitution Based On Old Testament (blogs.alternet.org)
    Constitutional Quizzery (whitelocust.wordpress.com)
    Political Language, Brought to You by Corporate America (woodgatesview.com)
    Bruce Wilson: Gingrich In Video Which Claims the Constitution Is Based On the Old Testament (huffingtonpost.com)
    America’s Twilight: Big Government Erosion of Privacy, Individual Rights, and Free Market (sfcmac.wordpress.com)
    This Bribery Law Has Actually Been Scaring Corporate America For The Past Decade (businessinsider.com)
    Exchequer:Hema Ramakrishnan’s
    Index-digest Federal Reserve Bulletin Volumes
     The Informer Arthur Cristian
    Exchequer (British government department)